or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Racing and Big Mountain Competitions › 2012/2013 Atomic D2 Race GS: Topsheet says 23m, but measures to 19m.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012/2013 Atomic D2 Race GS: Topsheet says 23m, but measures to 19m.

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

Me: haven't raced in many many years, but I still like to re-live my youth on GS skis when the snow conditions are right.  61 years old, 5'9", 170lbs.

 

Just before the start of the 2013 season, I picked up a pair of 2012/2013 Atomic D2 Race GS skis at a local ski swap at a great price.  They were "new", wax coated bases wrapped in the factory plastic & X16 bindings mounted [I later swapped the X16s for X12s].  Details on the skis, from the topsheets:

 

Model #AA0018200

103 x 67.5 x 86.6

>= 23m

 

Flex numbers: 48/37

 

Labelled length: 175

 

I snagged 'em because I believed them to be the slightly more complaint FIS women's 23m version.

 

I've skied 'em & they're great & surprisingly manageable.  This left me scratching my head.  I thought they'd be a little more work.  So, recently...

 

I found the FIS ski radius calc tool (http://member.fis-ski.com/skicalc.htm), measured the skis via precision digital calipers (per the FIS specs) & plugged the numbers into the calc tool. 

 

Per the calc tool, the skis have a measured radius of 19.44m - not the labelled >=23m.

 

The ski measurements (per the specs for the calc tool) were:

 

Measured length: 1739.9mm

front max: 102.55mm

mid min: 67.01mm

rear max: 86.25mm

mid min point to tail: 698.5mm

 

I doubted the calc tool at first, so I measured 3 other sets of skis in my quiver (I skipped the ones that have rocker).  In each case, the tool showed a radius that agreed with what was labelled on the ski (was either right on or +- a few tenths of a meter).

 

I can't see how these could be actual FIS AA0018200's, because I'm pretty sure they would have failed pre-race measurements.  Heh, maybe that's why I found 'em at a ski swap.  But, still in the wrappers??

 

Anyway, they perform great for me - no complaints.  Just curious if anyone has seen this kind of ski radius variance (labelled vs measured) before.

post #2 of 16

It's the length. If I put in 183 (which is what I ski on) for length, same tip tail waist measurements, it comes out 23, or thereabouts...

post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 

Yes, I saw the same thing when playing with the radius calculator.  Still don't understand why the topsheet on my 175s (that actually measure to 174) says >=23m while they really seem to be 19m skis.

post #4 of 16
GS skis at that length are not made for racers so whats printed has no official status. This way wannabee racers can carve turns more easy and safely on a groomer.
post #5 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post

GS skis at that length are not made for racers so whats printed has no official status. This way wannabee racers can carve turns more easy and safely on a groomer.

 

Except that for 2012/2013, the FIS regulations for womens GS was 175/23m.   (Source) (4th column labeled F.I.S/ENL and USSA 15+)

 

It makes sense that they should be set to a radius of 23, but they aren't. I'm not sure on the measuring techniques, but maybe there was a mis-measurement? SkiRacer55 noted about length, give that another check I guess.

 

I really doubt the margin of error would be that big, right? It just seems crazy to be a 19m instead of a 23m.

post #6 of 16

In reality I'd bet that the sidecut is not a radius at all but rather a compound curve.

I don't know how FIS measures but I think only first generation carvers had a sidecut that is a true circular arc segment.

Volkl touts their 3D sidecut which is a curve designed to work when flexed and not a simple radius.

Everything in engineering is an approximation.

post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakine View Post
 

In reality I'd bet that the sidecut is not a radius at all but rather a compound curve.

I don't know how FIS measures but I think only first generation carvers had a sidecut that is a true circular arc segment.

Volkl touts their 3D sidecut which is a curve designed to work when flexed and not a simple radius.

Everything in engineering is an approximation.

Not when flexed ....when tipped.

 

The widest part of the ski was moved toward the tip from the contact point.

 

I woned multiple pairs of P30 Race Carvers and Racer Carver Racings. (RCR) What a great GS ski they were. 

post #8 of 16

My 200 P-30's are in the attic.

They were the first pair of sidecut skis I had seen and bought them on the spot in Taos.

I didn't have a clue of how to ski them but one time when I was snowplowing one of them hooked up and the light came in.

Didn't take long before I was railing when everybody else was skidding.

Some folks (PSIA) criticized my skiing for that but in a couple of years everything changed.

I think my orange, 16 m Racetigers are still great skis.

A bit bitchy but with the strongest tip I have seen.

Load the tip and tip them some and across the hill you go.

They proved to be a little much for NASTAR because that tip creates some drag.

That led me to my blue race stock LT-1's which ski all underfoot with minimum drag.

I just put the racetigers in the attic but I'm not sure that was a good decision.

post #9 of 16

FIS calculator is current one (also service guys use it to check if particular ski will pass FIS check), but it might not work for few years old rules. I don't know for sure, but it could be few years ago, regulations for measuring skis were different. Tip and tail width could be measured on different position, as formula for calculating Lh and Ls could be different. Most likely your skis are 23+m radius, just that different method for measuring radius was used.

post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakine View Post
 

My 200 P-30's are in the attic.

They were the first pair of sidecut skis I had seen and bought them on the spot in Taos.

I didn't have a clue of how to ski them but one time when I was snowplowing one of them hooked up and the light came in.

Didn't take long before I was railing when everybody else was skidding.

Some folks (PSIA) criticized my skiing for that but in a couple of years everything changed.

I think my orange, 16 m Racetigers are still great skis.

A bit bitchy but with the strongest tip I have seen.

Load the tip and tip them some and across the hill you go.

They proved to be a little much for NASTAR because that tip creates some drag.

That led me to my blue race stock LT-1's which ski all underfoot with minimum drag.

I just put the racetigers in the attic but I'm not sure that was a good decision.


Nice Fischers you got there! :)

post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by primoz View Post
 

FIS calculator is current one (also service guys use it to check if particular ski will pass FIS check), but it might not work for few years old rules. I don't know for sure, but it could be few years ago, regulations for measuring skis were different. Tip and tail width could be measured on different position, as formula for calculating Lh and Ls could be different. Most likely your skis are 23+m radius, just that different method for measuring radius was used.


I don't think the method would make that much difference.  It's supposed to be the "best fit" arc.  Whether you do that by integrating least squares, using a few points or by eye, you should not be that far off.  I'm with TDK6; it's like putting a 4x4 badge on your two-wheel drive car, or a V-8 sticker on your 4-cylinder Mustang.

 

What will they think of next?  SG skis with an 27 m radius?:nono:

post #12 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by primoz View Post
 

FIS calculator is current one (also service guys use it to check if particular ski will pass FIS check), but it might not work for few years old rules. I don't know for sure, but it could be few years ago, regulations for measuring skis were different. Tip and tail width could be measured on different position, as formula for calculating Lh and Ls could be different. Most likely your skis are 23+m radius, just that different method for measuring radius was used.

 

[I'm the OP]

 

Ah, makes sense to me - perhaps that's it.

 

Hey, I'm not complaining, I'm enjoying the skis!

post #13 of 16

not over surprising.  I have had 183 Fischer WC GS marked >23 and >27, both with the same measured dimensions.  Also Blizzard 182 WC GS, marked at >23 and > 27, also with the same measured dimensions.

 

And, while I don't have my previous rule-book to hand, as i recall the 175 "Fis"???? ski was a ski intended primarily for younger /lighter/junior racers who had to comply for  FIS  events.  If you look at say the current Blizzard race range they list a 

  • Blizzard 2015 GS FIS Junior Race Skis

 

 

I also see quite a few older women masters using the 175/176 Atomic GS.  

 

I could be wrong but again IIRC under the previous FIS regs for higher level events - Noram/WC/EC - the minimum length for women was 178 or 180 

post #14 of 16
Thread Starter 

OP here...

 

They are in fact FIS WOMENs 175s, not really "junior" skis.  Heck, they came with x16s originally - which I swapped out for X12s (6.5 DIN is my max).  I'm too lazy to take pics of 'em, but here's a link to a shop that still lists them:

 

http://www.race-werks.com/atomic-rs-d2-gs-fis-race-skis-2012/

 

Anyway, that's what they look like.  Grey'ish/white'ish top deck, typical redster-like topsheet graphics.  Black bases with the Atomic symbol in the tip areas.

 

I do indeed like the skis.  Turn initiation is better than I expected.  But: before getting these skis I hadn't done any serious skiing on a "real" GS ski since 2002.  So I wasn't sure what to expect from Atomic's double deck 'tech when I first got on them. 

 

I'm 5'9", 170lbs.  A 175 is indeed too short for me if I was going to race.  Probably why they're so manageable for me.  In any case, they are quite damp & stable at speed for me, despite being 175s.  Hey, I'm just an old 'dude that uses these things on low tide days when the snow is super firm to practice technique.  Believe me, when I'm on these skis they let me know when I'm starting to get lazy.  The skis are not "a lot of work" for me but I do have to tighten up my form, angles & projection when I'm on 'em (ie: more so than my non-race skis).  Not what I'd call "forgiving" skis - but that's to be expected.  Capable of great acceleration out of turns... got launched onto a yard sale while getting to know them.

post #15 of 16

Say what you will about haggis, ScotsSkier knows race skis. "Junior" is actually not a slur, and is an acceptable synonym for FIS Entry League or USSA Under 18.

post #16 of 16
Thread Starter 

Oh, sorry.  I didn't mean to imply I disagreed with 'scot or that Jr skis were funky.  Just emphasizing that Atomic listed the models as Women's skis.  Doesn't matter to me if they're Women's or Junior's; the skis work well for me.

 

Gang, many thanks for all the feedback.  I believe I got the info I was looking for.  Again, thanks!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Racing and Big Mountain Competitions › 2012/2013 Atomic D2 Race GS: Topsheet says 23m, but measures to 19m.